Allegations of War Crimes and the Palestinian Genocide

Many people claim that war crimes are being committed in Gaza, that a genocide is underway, and that starvation is being used as a weapon of war. Some of these claims are made by people who claim to be experts on Genocide and War Crimes. Most of these claims have been made without any independent verification or observation of the situation on the ground or any real understanding of the laws of armed conflict. What is generally evident that many of these claims are made by people who have a strong antisemitic bias or are aligned with Hamas and the Palestinian cause or are simply repeating what they have heard from others without any real understanding of the situation. One of the maxims of politics is that if you repeat a lie no matter how large often enough people will believe it to be true. In the age of fake news and social media, this maxim has never been more true.

I am not an apologist for this war. War is tragic. Hamas should not have attacked; many Palestinians now say its leaders misjudged Israel’s response. In my view, Israel should have dismantled Hamas’s military capabilities as quickly as possible and then negotiated a ceasefire. Instead, the war became prolonged—arguably the only politically viable outcome for the governing parties—at great cost. Israel has lost many soldiers and has been drawn into conflicts with Iranian proxies in Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, and Iraq, as well as direct clashes with Iran. The war relies heavily on reservists and has disrupted the economy and daily life. While Israel has suffered missile and drone attacks on civilians, investments in missile defense, shelters, and a strong military have limited casualties compared to the other side.

Below I explain why I do not think the claims of genocide or starvation as a deliberate weapon are justified, and I address the broader allegations of war crimes.

I am not a lawyer and have not studied international law in depth. However I followed the proceeding of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague and I have also helped edit some of related wikipedia articles on the subject. I have also been to Gaza, the West Bank and witnessed the situation there first hand though not during the war.

Allegations of War Crimes

War is brutal. In Gaza, Hamas fighters do not typically wear uniforms or operate away from civilians. Gaza is densely populated, and Hamas embeds military assets in the most sensitive civilian areas—schools, hospitals, mosques, and apartment buildings—according to footage released by the IDF. This strategy both shields Hamas and increases civilian casualties, which historically have fueled international pressure to halt Israeli operations.

Note that the conventions governing warfare tacitly assume that the combatants are state actors with formal militaries and have their own civilians and infrastructure to protect. In asymmetric warfare, these assumptions break down and we should not be aware that the Hamas strategy is one that does not prioritize their own civilian safety.

By contrast, the IDF has a formal code of conduct and a liberal public that demands minimization of civilian harm even to hostile civilian population. The IDF has often warned civilians—via leaflets, texts, phone calls, and media—before strikes. Still, when an enemy operates within civilian areas, soldiers must protect themselves. In fast-moving situations, a soldier may misidentify a perceived threat. Such tragedies—including cases where the victim is an escaped hostage or a child—are not automatically war crimes when they stem from mistakes in combat.

The IDF operates in a way that responsibility for illegal action goes up the chain of command unless the soldier who committed the act are proven to have acted outside the orders they were given. This gives senior officers a strong incentive to ensure that their orders are lawful and that their soldiers understand them and that they are held accountable for their actions.

A war of Necessity

The current war in Gaza began in reaction to the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israeli civilians and soldiers. The attack killed over 1,400 people and took more than 200 hostages, many of whom remain captive. The attack was planned and executed by Hamas together with large number of civilian supporters.

We know much of what took place on October 7th because many of the Hamas fighters took thier victims phones and streamed thier execution on thier social media feeds. Again this was not a spontaneous attack but a well planned and coordinated attack that took years of planning and preparation.

Some of the Hamas atrocities:

Hamas and a large number of Palestinian civilians participated in the October 7th attacks. They committed many atrocities against Israeli civilians and soldiers on October 7th. Many of these are either war crimes or crimes against humanity. Here is a short list of some of these atrocities:

1. Attacks on civilians population centers with rockets and mortars.
2. Eco terrorism causing fires in civilian areas with incendiary balloons.
3. Attacks on civilians population
4. Execution of Israeli civilians who were unarmed and helpless (Jewish and Muslim)
5. Systematic Rape and sexual violence against civilians (Crime against humanity)
6. Systematic burning of civilians alive in thier homes. (Crime against humanity)
7. Broadcasting these acts live on social media to great suffering to the victims and thier families (Crime against humanity)
8. Looting civilian homes and businesses.
9. Mutilation and Burning of bodies of enemy soldiers and civilians.
10. Taking civilians as hostages.
11. Looting civilian homes and businesses and stealing cars, pets and burning what they could not take with them.
12. Not giving enemy soldiers the right of Enemy Combatant status.
13. Executing both enemy soldiers and civilians after capture.
14. Withholding medical treatment from wounded enemy soldiers and civilians.
15. Withholding food and water from the hostages.
16. Torture of captured enemy soldiers.
17. Perfidy i.e. fighting dressed as civilians to exploit protection of soldiers under the laws of armed conflict.
18. Pretending to be a civilian to kill enemy soldiers.
19. Traveling in ambulances and using medical facilities to transport weapons and fighters.

These atrocities were perpetrated against both Jewish and Arab civilians. Any muslim civilian who was met by hamas was asked to assist them and executed as a traitor if they refused.

They were often filmed and broadcast live on social media to great suffering of the victims and their families. We now know that these attacks were sanctioned by the Hamas leadership and thier Clerics before the attack of October 7th 2023. The fact that Hamas fighters did this openly and brazenly shows that they had no fear of being prosecuted for these crimes or that they expected to die in the process and become martyrs.

There is no court of law in Gaza or the West Bank that would prosecute Hamas for these crimes if an election was to be held they would oust the government of the. The casualties of Hamas are considered martyrs and thier families are rewarded with a monthly stipends by the Palestinian Authority.

It therefore incumbent upon the state of Israel to prosecute these crimes and more importantly to prevent them from happening again. This is what the war in Gaza is about. Many of Hamas leaders and fighters have been killed but many more have taken their place. So far it appears that Hamas is still in power and has been able to recover and regroup. It militants insist that they be allowed to continue to steal aid and use it to finance thier war effort. They are not yet ready to give up thier arms nor thier goal of the complete destruction of the state of Israel.

Rules of Engagement

A soldier’s first obligation is to protect themselves and their unit. IDF rules of engagement are intended to minimize harm: typically, a verbal warning in Arabic, then a warning shot, then a non-lethal shot, and only then lethal force. In the fog of war, escalation steps may not be feasible when there is an imminent threat. Intentionally killing civilians—or combatants who have surrendered—is a war crime. However, when armed individuals within a crowd open fire or pose an imminent threat, soldiers may return fire, even if civilians are present. Proving an intentional killing without perceived threat is a high bar in a battlefield context.

IDF Soldiers are attacked by Hamas fighters in civilian clothes coming from underground peers, sniper attacks from buildings and numerous IEDs and booby traps. Reports of soldiers awaking as thier based is under attack are not uncommon. Such is the form of warfare taking place that IDF soldiers have learned to take many precautions and few chances when it comes to thier own safety.

Disproportionate Force and Dual-Use Targets

“Disproportionate force” can constitute a war crime, but proportionality is judged relative to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated, not by a simple comparison of weapons or casualty counts. Armies may strike legitimate military objectives even when civilians are nearby, provided the expected collateral damage is not excessive. Many targets in Gaza are dual-use (civilian facilities used for military purposes). Striking such targets, with feasible precautions, is legally permitted though often tragic in effect.

Duel use of an apartment building?

In practice Hamas often uses an apartment for a sniper nest or a missile launcher. IN such a case the entire building then becomes a legitimate target.

There have been cases where IDF sent special forces to rescue hostages from such buildings but if there are no hostage and instead a high value target such as a senior Hamas commander it may be decided to level the entire building without a warning. Such decisions are not taken lightly but any modern army would operate in a similar manner depending on their military objectives and the people who wrote the laws allow commanders to make such decisions within the framework of the law of armed conflict.

As for the remaining residents if they choose to stay are then at risk of being caught in the crossfire.

The IDF may attack the apartment but the option of leveling the entire building may be the preferred option if the IDF believes the building is being used for military purposes. The IDF though may prefer to warn residents through leaflets and phone calls to evacuate buildings before striking them.

Air Strikes and Artillery

The IDF has frequently used precision-guided munitions to reduce collateral damage (though stocks may run low in protracted wars). Warnings and evacuations are often attempted. Commanders must balance military necessity with civilian risk; delays to minimize harm are common, but once a strike is underway it can endanger civilians, enemy combatants, and IDF forces alike. In dense urban warfare against an adversary that disregards the laws of war, the reliance on air and artillery support to limit friendly casualties is predictable.

An AI-assisted targeting process reportedly helps compile targets and centralize approval. Typically, pilots seek authorization from a command center, which approves attacks when there is sufficient evidence of a military or dual-use objective.

War Crimes: Summary

I do not claim the IDF is perfect or that no violations have occurred. I do claim that the legal threshold for proving a war crime is high, and that the IDF maintains rules of engagement aimed at reducing civilian harm. Senior officers are accountable; allegations are investigated by the military police and legal authorities. The war cabinet has also taken pains to frame operations as lawful. One can argue the war’s goals are unrealistic or politically prolonged without that alone establishing illegality. There is no fixed formula for proportionality; commanders must make case-by-case judgments.

Compared to other recent conflicts—Syria’s civil war, the Jordanian expulsion of Palestinians, or the famine in Yemen and Somalia—civilian harm in this war is not “uniquely” unprecedented, even though it remains devastating. Other actors in the region, including Iran and its proxies, have also committed grave violations. My point is not that Israeli misconduct would be excusable if others have done worse; it is that raw casualty figures and damage alone do not prove war crimes. Many media claims should be weighed against decades of propaganda aimed at delegitimizing Israel. In my view, while some allegations may be substantiated, many appear to be part of psychological warfare intended to fracture Israeli society and undermine support for the war.

Genocide and Starvation as a Weapon of War

Much criticism comes from outlets or institutions that have not deployed independent observers in Gaza and rely on sources aligned with Hamas, such as the Gaza health ministry. UN reports and international filings often focus on Israeli actions while saying little about Hamas’s. Wikipedia aspires to neutrality but inevitably reflects the biases of its editors.

Is There a State-Sponsored Genocide?

Given the centrality of Holocaust education and memory in Israel, the claim that the state is pursuing genocide is shocking. I see no evidence of cabinet decisions or parliamentary approvals for any “final solution.” Israel’s politics are leaky; such a plan would be hard to conceal.

Is There Bosnia-Style Ethnic Cleansing by Militias?

Militias in the West Bank have been accused of harassment and reprisals, and Israeli authorities have taken actions against offenders. But no Israelis live in Gaza since the 2005 disengagement; it is a closed military zone. Only specific IDF units operate there. The notion of non-IDF militias conducting ethnic cleansing in Gaza does not fit the reality on the ground.

Inside Israel, Jews and Arabs live in mixed cities; many Arab citizens serve in public institutions, and some serve in the IDF. If organized ethnic cleansing by Israeli forces were occurring, one would expect widespread, concrete allegations in courts, media, and human rights channels. To date, the most prominent international accusations target top leaders for authorizing the war—not field-level ethnic cleansing campaigns.

Is There Rwanda-Style Incitement?

After the Rabin assassination, Israeli law and norms have been particularly sensitive to incitement. While harsh rhetoric appears on panels and social media, mainstream broadcasters do not openly coordinate violence. Complaints of incitement are prosecuted. The early-war Hamas incitement and bounties on hostages illustrate the opposite side’s tactics, which many outside observers downplay.

Starvation in Gaza

Overthinking the Milk Shortages in Israel

Israel sold much of its dairy production capacity to Chinese investors. Prices for many dairy products rose over the years; regulated items like basic milk and cheese could not simply be repriced upward, so supply was allegedly reduced instead, creating recurring “shortages.” During the war, enforcement against such practices has been lax, benefiting entrenched interests. This microcosm of regulatory failure and profiteering may help explain how shortages can be manufactured—or at least tolerated—during crises.

The war has disrupted labor and supply chains in Israel itself; conditions in Gaza are far worse. Still, it is difficult to prove a deliberate strategy to starve civilians. UN agencies repeatedly warned of risk from the outset, but Gaza’s long-standing dependence on aid and Hamas’s governance choices complicate the picture. When Israel withdrew in 2005, greenhouses and fields were left behind; Gaza could have expanded self-sufficiency but invested heavily in tunnels and armaments instead.

Reports indicate Hamas has diverted aid, taxed or resold supplies, and used distribution to reward loyalty and punish dissent. Meanwhile, prices have soared, and access to food and medicine is hardest for the vulnerable: the sick, elderly, and children—many now orphaned or out of school.

Israeli leadership often practices brinkmanship, delaying decisions to gain leverage. At times officials threatened to halt aid, water, or electricity; in practice, aid has continued to flow—sometimes financed by Israel—despite diversion risks. Logistics are messy even for the IDF itself; supplying troops hot meals in the field has not been trivial for a modern army. It is therefore unsurprising that civilian supply in Gaza is inconsistent and often inadequate.

Recap: Gaza has made limited investments in food and energy self-sufficiency and has relied on aid while Hamas prioritized military infrastructure. The war disrupted supply, displacement hindered access, and diversion further reduced availability. There is a real shortage; some people are starving while others manage. That reality can stem from Hamas’s co